"I agree absolutely about governments having the duty to create the nation's money supply, but it's the commercial banks that have the privilege of doing so at the moment, not the Bank of England (which only issues notes and coins, a mere 3% of the money supply). All non-cash money (97% of money in circulation) is created in the form of "loans" by the high-street banks to their customers."

This comment is correct apart from where it says "which *only* issues notes and coins etc etc" which is an erroneous and misleading statement.

Yes the BOE does have an exclusive licence to print hard currency and it only creates enough physical currency to keep the cash economy flowing which is small in comparison to the cashless electronic economy but if this cashless economy was not a reality then it would be printing 100 percent of the physical cash in circulation.

The BOE hasnt lost 97 percent of its business in the meantime so for example where did the approx 1.5 trillion come from that the Govt borrowed to bailout the financial sector if the Govt didnt have a spare 1.5 trillion set aside for a rainy day ??

Where did it come from if the govt didnt just find 1.5 trillion down the back of the sofa ?

Thats right it had to borrow it from the BOE as it wasnt just created out of thin air or it was but not officially of course

"All non-cash money ius created in the form of loans.....yadda yadda yadda....."

Its not "All non cash money" at all as i have just pointed out above as the High St banks and their lending is a totally seperate economy to the 1.5 trillion bailout as the people on MainSt dont go to the BOE for a loan on a house or car or whatever.How can someone confuse the commercial banking sector with large scale borrowing and the creation of currency by the BOE or ignore it completely ??

I dont know but i am pointing out the errors as they are major errors that need to be pointed out.

Anyway one final point in the comments section which is concise and completely correct :

"Profits are private and losses are collectively passed onto the citizens/tax payers."

Its not like we will all receive dividends the banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer and its exactly the same in the US.Politicians and the likes of Bernanke and Brown tell us what a good investment it was for the taxpayer blah blah blah but no one will see a penny of it because it is not passed on as it stays in the hands of the State so by default it stays in the hands of the Bankers which means we are buying the banks for them while they charge us interest on the loans so the assets that they take over and sieze are not costing them ANYTHING !!

CO2/AGW scam has been well and truly exposed for what it is and that is a fraud.

I expect it's not a surprise I'd pick that out of the pile! I'm not sure if you're referring to 'Climate Gate' or not, but for the sake of balance (if anyone's interested) here's a few links. After all, the follow up reporting was a bit skimpy.

Great link there, Peter, thanks. Just spent an hour or so surfing around it and found some interesting stuff. Not least of which amongst my finds was the Proposed Bank of England Act 2010, which is well worth telling your local MP about. You can see what it is here: http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/

The latest proposal in the ongoing attack on the world's wealth is that all these "bigger banks" need to be broken up into smaller entities and placed under the direct control of... guess who? The Company of the Bank of England, of course, with it's unelected Court of Directors in charge. Divide and conquer, oldest trick in the book.

Actually, Mikey, the real truth is that nobody's completely sure what's driving climate change. The suspicion is that the anthropogenic hypothesis is being more extensively researched than other possibilities for financial purposes, chief of which is the carbon tax. If you've been keeping up with how the banking system works, taking more out of the system than is put in, then it becomes clear how much governments need this extra, global revenue and how invested they are in seeing this one "explanation" solidified as the root cause. If, for example, it turns out that cosmic rays are chiefly responsible for climate change, the need for a carbon tax evaporates overnight. Trillions of dollars in lost income.

If, for example, it turns out that cosmic rays are chiefly responsible for climate change,

That's like saying "if it turns out the banking system is fine and pixies have been stealing our money". Of course the bankers and politicians have turned the climate crisis to their advantage with the criminal and pointless carbon trading, but that's no excuse to give any credence to discredited theories like that one.

... no excuse to give any credence to discredited theories like that one.

That theory was mentioned there in the context of the carbon tax argument, not for its level of current scientific credibility.

On the subject of scientific credibility, though, I find it curious how mere mention of certain theories such as the one alluded to can cause such an instant negative reaction. Cosmic rays certainly exist. They certainly interact with other things in the Solar System such as the heliosphere, the Earth's magnetic field and our atmosphere. Whether or not the interaction of cosmic rays with our atmosphere is a driver to climate change or not is surely, from a scientific standpoint, irrelevant?

Science is not a straight path and study of cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere may lead to a deeper understanding of how our climate works or even lead to some other discovery entirely. Once a theory is slammed and mocked because "that's not the cause," it ostracizes every serious scientist interested in that field. Political and media pressure is brought to bear on scientists, encouraging one view and rubbishing another instead of respecting the true nature of science, which is the quest for truths, be they inconvenient or otherwise.

I accept where you're coming from, Dan, and I'm prepared to admit that the current scientific opinion is that cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere seem unlikely to be a major contributing factor to climate change. I do not accept, however, that majority scientific opinion is always correct and, because of this, any researcher who believes this to be a valid field of research should be free to explore it without political pressure to do otherwise.

For the record, I posted those links to highlight 'what happened next' in response to Peter's comment (that I took to refer to UEA etc). I understand those and perhaps future findings may be seen as part of the alleged conspiracy, but there you go. I'm not interested in 'converting' anyone.

I've stated before now what my view on the whole thing is, so I won't repeat myself apart from saying I find a lot of people IMO would rather believe ANYTHING other than we have had a direct and measurable impact on the atmosphere.

The fact the fuckers well discussed here can make money out of it, well it doesn't make me very comfortable, but it doesn't give me any doubts about my own understanding.

And I live over 10m OD

(I was reading this morning about a proposed link between megafauna extinction and a drop in CH4, linking to the Younger Dryas/Nahanagan! How interesting is that?)

I honestly don't know if it's all a conspiracy or not, to be honest. The corporations and central banks may or may not be singing from the same hymn sheet, and what does it really matter if they are? We can carry on as is or we can change things.

And for the record, I don't know enough about what's causing climate change to be sure of anything. I just don't know. All I know is that we'd better learn to either control it or adapt to it, or a mixture of the two, or we might all live to regret it.

As for the proposed link between megafauna extinction and a drop in CH4, linking to the Younger Dryas/Nahanagan, I can only say this: Huh? You just made me feel very dumb

I am not sure i like all this "Blame Obama" thing going on with the BP oil leak because its too much like over-simplified scapegoating when its actually far more complicated than that and really the blame is has to be shared with all those who have vested interests in BP like Goldman Sachs and politicians in govt in the US, BP themselves, and all kinds of things.

There is a "Blame Obama" voting box ad type thing on Youtube.

I think its idiotic and its for people who havent got a clue about anything and as much as i have disagreed with the Obama administration on just about EVERYTHING i cant go along with mindless misdirected scapegoating on an obvious target because that always means that those who are actually to blame and are responsible get away with it all yet again just like they always do like Goldman Sachs for example.The way i see it potentially going with this situation is Barak.H.Obama being used and set up as a fall guy in an attempt to save the reputation and viability of BP as a going concern.This is the way that the likes of Goldman Sachs [major shareholders of BP] etc work to protect their investments as they use people up and then throw them away when they are no longer useful.

I said Obama was capitulating to corporate/financial interests and thats because corporate/financial interests own and paid for Obamas election campaign and own Obama so Obama just does what he is told and thats how it works.Look at BPs activities in the Gulf Of Mexico right now because that tells you all you need to know about who exactly is in charge and its certainly not Obama or the US Federal govt for that matter.

People dont know anything about how the pecking order/hierachy works in politics.

For the record, I posted those links to highlight 'what happened next' in response to Peter's comment (that I took to refer to UEA etc). I understand those and perhaps future findings may be seen as part of the alleged conspiracy, but there you go. I'm not interested in 'converting' anyone.

I've stated before now what my view on the whole thing is, so I won't repeat myself apart from saying I find a lot of people IMO would rather believe ANYTHING other than we have had a direct and measurable impact on the atmosphere.

The fact the fuckers well discussed here can make money out of it, well it doesn't make me very comfortable, but it doesn't give me any doubts about my own understanding.

M

I just deleted my reply by mistake unfortunately so another time but i didnt want to appear like i was ignoring your posts.

Um, I'm both relieved and slightly embarassed; I don't really remember posting that second comment yesterday as I'd been drinking cider and getting sunburned during the afternoon.

Thankfully I didn't kick off! But why the hell did I add that bit at the end? I can see what I was thinking about, but was too fuddled to make a point. It was also posted from my phone, so must have taken ages to type (found my phone in the garden, which lead to the dim recollection I had posted something ) it's the first time I've posted drunk, honest.

Um, I'm both relieved and slightly embarassed; I don't really remember posting that second comment yesterday as I'd been drinking cider and getting sunburned during the afternoon.

Thankfully I didn't kick off! But why the hell did I add that bit at the end? I can see what I was thinking about, but was too fuddled to make a point. It was also posted from my phone, so must have taken ages to type (found my phone in the garden, which lead to the dim recollection I had posted something ) it's the first time I've posted drunk, honest.

As you were...

M.

I dont see any problem with your second comment so i am not sure what you mean and if you were drunk then it was certainly not apparent.